Comments on: Spurious #5: Variance of Autocorrelated Processeshttps://climateaudit.org/2005/09/05/spurious-variance-of-autocorrelated-processes/
by Steve McIntyreThu, 08 Dec 2016 12:56:06 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: TCOhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/09/05/spurious-variance-of-autocorrelated-processes/#comment-36722
Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:25:34 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=342#comment-36722damn, just read your bio. You are a stud. First in class in pure maths. Squash world champion. Chavez coup experiencer. Sheesh.
]]>By: Louis Hissinkhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/09/05/spurious-variance-of-autocorrelated-processes/#comment-36721
Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:12:37 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=342#comment-36721I always become suspicious when complex statistical techniques are needed to extract “facts” from data that on first examination are rather uniformative – almost as if the a theory was proposed and the data then massaged to support the theory.

As for your initial question, I just wonder whether these issues arise because statistics are being extended to problems that can’t be subject to this type of analysis in the first place.